From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Feb 21 14:56:56 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 21 Feb 2003 22:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 25124 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2003 22:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Feb 2003 22:56:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2003 22:56:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18mM6B-0002cm-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:55 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18mM5X-0002cL-00; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:15 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from postfix3-2.free.fr ([213.228.0.169]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18mM5O-0002c0-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:56:06 -0800 Received: from free.fr (nas-cbv-4-62-147-140-149.dial.proxad.net [62.147.140.149]) by postfix3-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33AACC0F5 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:56:02 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 23:44:53 +0100 Subject: [lojban] Re: another tag Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis In-Reply-To: <20030220181954.GK11447@digitalkingdom.org> Message-Id: <17D41D1C-45EE-11D7-BB4A-003065E00134@free.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-archive-position: 4124 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jexOm@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: jexOm. From: jexOm. Reply-To: jexOm@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out Le jeudi, 20 fév 2003, à 19:19 Europe/Paris, Robin Lee Powell a écrit : > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:29:08AM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:02:42AM +0100, jexOm. wrote: >>>> If I want to say something like: "Learn Lojban! You'll like it, for >>>> sure.", I really want to repeat the previous bridi. >>>> In fact I started from the example page 97 in the CLL. The example >>>> is >>>> {la djan. klama le zarci .i la djan. go'i troci}. >>>> And I realize now that {.i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba go'i >>>> nelci} >>>> may be better, because if I use this example, it goes like: >>>> {do tadni la lojban.} >>>> {do go'i nelci} for {do tadni be la lojban. be'o nelci} >>>> You are a learner (learning lojban) type of one-who-likes. >>> >>> No; you are a learner-of-lojban type-of liker. What you like is not >>> actually specified. >>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> I think that you want "nelci le nu go'i" >> >> A slob like me would find ".i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba nelci" >> quite sufficient. Coming from English, we have the tendency to >> overspecify when context really makes it perfectly clear what we mean. > > An excellent point xod. I'm of the opinion that dropping unnecessary > specificity in favour of context is one of lojban's major saving graces > in the face of its amazing tendency to verbosity. I agree, and for a slogan maybe the shorter the better. Lojban allows you to be precise if you'd like to, though. When I say "Learn/study Lojban, you'll like it", well (English is not my native tongue) it may be: 1) "Study Lojban, you'll like Lojban" 2) "Study Lojban, you'll like to study Lojban". To me the second meaning is the default, but I may be wrong... Anyway, this is what I tried to say in my "tag", and that's why I tried to use {go'i}. I took this opportunity to read more about abstractors (CLL p.265). Maybe 'experience' would be better than 'event'. I.e.: {.i ko tadni la lojban .i ju'o do ba nelci leli'i go'i} Comments on this one? Thanks, Jérôme.